ext_117715 ([identity profile] emeraldreeve.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] indeedsir_backup 2009-11-17 10:32 am (UTC)

Reasoning for most being young or for older men serving? I'm guessing older men. My reasoning is due to the fact that there were older men overseas. {I have a big stack of books by computer. One is Time's D-Day Anniversary issue, and I'm getting some ages from there.}. General Bradley was 50. Percy Hobart had been dismissed into retirement in 1940. He served first in the Home Guard and then commanded a division into Normandy. He was 56 in 1943. The oldest US fighting man in the invasion was Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. at 57. From the Internet there is: Captain Kenneth Cummins who served in the Royal Navy in WWI and the Merchant Navy in WWII. Wikipedia has him born in 1900 so he would have been in his 40s in WWII. The same for Bill Stone.

If you go here:

http://www.unithistories.com/officers/Army_officers_B02.html

and scroll down, you'll see men that served in both wars and so couldn't have been in their 20s in WWII. {You'll also see men that were probably young.} The catch with all this is that these men were military career men, so were already in the military and were not called up. It makes sense, though, that if registration reached men of age 40 in June 1941 that men in their late 30s, at least, were called up and therefore just possible that either Bertie or Jeeves were called up.

I read an account of a 40 year old who was called at the start of the war, but I don't know if I bookmarked it or not. If I find it or anything similar, I'll give you the link.

World at War is a great documentary. As far as I can tell it's a reliable documentary.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting